I've worked on JCDecaux smart signage. The camera is used for analytics purposes using computer vision (people counting, attentiveness, demographic data, dwell times, etc.). Nothing is recorded. In some cases, processing even happens at the edge.

> Nothing is recorded. In some cases, processing even happens at the edge.

If the data is not processed at the edge, how is nothing recorded? This smells like extremely minced words.

IANAL (definitely not a German one) but I'm almost certain that even post-2017 it's still illegal to take video in a public space and send it elsewhere, without a sign, even if that video is not in some sense "preserved" elsewhere.

If data stays in RAM and is not written to permanent storage, I think you can reasonably say it’s not recorded.

Frankly, I think you could even persist it to disk as long as it was pruned within 24 hours and reasonably say it’s not recorded.

Otherwise I’m not sure how you can argue ANY data is “unrecorded”. Writing to a hardware buffer in the camera module would seem like “recording” to me by the strict standard.

If I go and record a stranger in the street today in Germany I am quite certain that would be illegal even if I delete the recording within 24h.

And I studied Film in Germany and had to deal with precisely this a hundred times. If WallDecaux is doing this, it is at least a legal grey area, unless they operate on private property, look at their own private property and have a sign that says there is a camera in operation.

Ah yes, the "NES ROM" theory of public surveillance laws. Definitely well-considered.

Another theory that could place it in a loophole: It may be performing object detection without recording what we think of as normal video. Similar to self-driving technology and object recognition, useful data can be derived without actually recording the traditional thought of “HD video in color”.